Now Guy's,
Apple OS/X - Unix ain't it, similar to Linux??? Don't bother to port Apple/Unix to the 99% of the market that uses a PC, you can get the 'real' Unix O/S. Did I read somewhere a complaint that Bill gates had copied the Apple GUI to make Win? I think Apple cribbed the Digital Research GUI to make the Apple O/S.
Cheers,
BD. ----- Original Message ----- From: main-request@lists.alug.org.uk To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 6:26 AM Subject: main digest, Vol 3 #499 - 4 msgs
Send main mailing list submissions to main@lists.alug.org.uk
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to main-request@lists.alug.org.uk
You can reach the person managing the list at main-admin@lists.alug.org.uk
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of main digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late (Wayne Stallwood)
- Re: Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late (Adam Bower)
- Re: Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late (Wayne
Stallwood)
- Re: Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late (Adam Bower)
--__--__--
Message: 1 From: Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:45:50 +0000 Subject: [ALUG] Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late
I posted this to a newsgroup yesterday, the more I think about it the more
I
think someone *could* make a go of selling a Apple like solution. Anyone
care
to comment ?
When are those people over there ever going to wake up? Jobs could put Gates on welfare if he'd port the Mac OS to the PC. I'd buy it in a heartbeat, even with Apple's usurious profit margins ..
Every time I hear this I wince, Do you know what OSX would become if it
was
ever ported over to the X86 platform...
OSX is nice, clean, relatively stable and deserved of the "Just works"
title
simply because the developer of the OS is in 100% control of the platform. The only machines that (in a legitimate manner) can run OSX are designed and manufactured under licence from Apple themselves. Because of this I would expect random crashes and installation difficulties from an Apple no more than what I'd expect from say an Xbox.
Port it over to a platform like x86 where there are a thousand
manufacturers
competing with their own little tweaks, variations and buggy third party drivers combined with the massive task of support for legacy hardware and applications and you'd either have the unstable mess that is Windows XP or limited manufacturer hardware support as towards Linux.
Think about this- (and if anybody forms a business model based on this I thought of it first :-) )
For the sake of argument (and because we are on a SuSE newsgroup here)
Lets
say Novell came up with their own hardware platform, base it on X86 architecture if you like.
Now imagine that they only supported SuSE linux when it was running on
that
platform, and the only third party hardware and software they supported
was
that which they had agreed (by arrangement with the manufacturer) was compatible with SuSE linux.
Imagine how stable and easy to use that system could be, everything could just plug in and work, there would be almost zero hardware compatability issues because they would have been resolved by Novell/The Hardware manufacturer before you bought the kit....it would be just like an Apple (or a Sun box)
Of course some people would shun it, they would say that they can buy a computer cheaper from Dell cheaper than the Novell one and then download a free Linux distribution to go on it, or they'd say that Novell don't sell
a
computer that meets their particular needs, or they dislike the fact they they are tied into one vendor. But some people want more of an appliance than a computer and that's how I see Mac's, you take them home and plug them in and they just work.
--__--__--
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:45:31 +0100 From: Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 05:45:50PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I posted this to a newsgroup yesterday, the more I think about it the
more I
think someone *could* make a go of selling a Apple like solution. Anyone
care
to comment ?
Port it over to a platform like x86 where there are a thousand
manufacturers
competing with their own little tweaks, variations and buggy third party drivers combined with the massive task of support for legacy hardware
and
applications and you'd either have the unstable mess that is Windows XP
or
limited manufacturer hardware support as towards Linux.
Well, Mac OS X is partially a port of BSD Unix and NeXT technology, NeXT made releases of their software for x86, BSD Unix runs on x86, Darwin exists for x86 and there are a few bits of other software that are obviously not ported yet and lots of bits of GPL stuff in OS X.
Basically, yeah Apple could put everything into a big mixing pot and come out with a version that runs on x86 and it would probably be very cool, worrying about some drivers isn't really a huge problem as if you buy crap hardware then you get crap drivers, if the hardware already has a Mac OS X driver then why should the x86 version be any crapper?
The reason that Apple won't release Mac OS X on x86 would be because it would instantly kill their hardware lineup, who would buy a super-expensive Mac for twice as much as a cheap x86 box with Mac OS X? and given that how many people would then buy Mac OS X for x86 when they could just pirate it? At this point Apple will have managed to kill their revenue stream, Apple would die as would Mac OS X and a large company that opposes M$ would crumble into the dust. This would be bad news and not very good news for Linux as M$ (who are imho far more evil than Apple will ever be) would now have a larger market share and more of a stranglehold on that monopoly of theirs, *just* kept it on topic there with that last line.
Adam
jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
--__--__--
Message: 3 From: Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:45:45 +0000
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 7:45 pm, Adam Bower wrote:
Basically, yeah Apple could put everything into a big mixing pot and come out with a version that runs on x86 and it would probably be very cool, worrying about some drivers isn't really a huge problem as if you buy crap hardware then you get crap drivers, if the hardware already has a Mac OS X driver then why should the x86 version be any crapper?
I remain unconvinced, it's hard to properly QA software or hardware for
the=
=20 X86 platform because there are so many variables and inconsistencies. If
yo=
u=20 say "Supports Mac OSX" then you are really talking about a very limited
ran=
ge=20 of machines that you have to test your product against.
The reason that Apple won't release Mac OS X on x86 would be because it would instantly kill their hardware lineup, who would buy a super-expensive Mac for twice as much as a cheap x86 box with Mac OS X?
Agreed apart from the bit about Mac's being super expensive, that's only
tr=
ue=20 if you ignore things like build quality and sensible design and just
compar=
e=20 clock speeds.
I struggle to find laptops as well designed as say the iBook or
Powerbook's=
=20 for less money when I start to consider other things that are important to
=
me=20 (portability, battery life, build quality).
When the Dual G5 was first made available it was very hard to build a
X86=20
based machine with the same real world performance for much less money
and=
=20 that's completely ignoring the fact that they are one of the best
designed=
=20 and built Workstations I have ever had the pleasure of pulling to bits.
You can beat the Mini Mac on a straight price/performance comparasion,
but=
=20 factor in subjective things like near silent running and the tiny form
fact=
or=20 and you'll struggle to find anything to compare. Just off the top of my
hea=
d=20 a MiniITX board, case, memory, Hard drive, Slimline CDRW and PSU comes
to=20
about =A3250 retail (and that's for less performance and does not include
a=
n=20 operating system or any manufacturer support)=20
and given that how many people would then buy Mac OS X for x86 when they could just pirate it? At this point Apple will have managed to kill=20 their revenue stream, Apple would die as would Mac OS X and a large company that opposes M$ would crumble into the dust. This would be bad news and not very good news for Linux as M$ (who are imho far more evil than Apple will ever be) would now have a larger market share and more of a stranglehold on that monopoly of theirs, *just* kept it on topic there with that last line.
Agreed
--__--__--
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:44:01 +0100 From: Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Seeing as the list has been a little quiet of late
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:45:45PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Agreed apart from the bit about Mac's being super expensive, that's only
true
if you ignore things like build quality and sensible design and just
compare
clock speeds.
No, have to disagree on this totally, build quality is something you can't argue about really as it gets subjective to the actual machine you do the comparison with. There are crap built x86 machines, but then there are some fine examples of x86 engineering. Sensible design, I would/could somewhat agree on in the Macs favour, although there are flaws (more on that below) and the clock speed comparison isn't really what I am basing my examples on. Just look how much Apple charge you to have more Ram, faster/bigger harddisks, or upgraded gfx cards when you compare like for like Apple seems to be charging at least a 50% premium over what you can buy for an x86 pc. They usually want 35 quid! just to add bluetooth support.
I struggle to find laptops as well designed as say the iBook or
Powerbook's
for less money when I start to consider other things that are important
to me
(portability, battery life, build quality).
IBM thinkpads are good, and I given that around 50% of Mac laptop owners I know have had to send the thing off for repair within the first year (and quite a few of them more than once) I think Mac laptops suck, although they do appear to be getting better again so ask me again in another year.
When the Dual G5 was first made available it was very hard to build a
X86
based machine with the same real world performance for much less money
and
that's completely ignoring the fact that they are one of the best
designed
and built Workstations I have ever had the pleasure of pulling to bits.
That will be the one that Apple got in trouble for because they lied about the performance ;) and how do you categorise "real world performance"? Many of the tasks I want to do on my computer are not possible on a Mac, that would mean it has a real world performance rating of 0, on other tasks then it may be slightly faster but then I could buy 2 (or more) x86 machines for the same price. Also look at how expensive a Mac that will play Doom III nicely costs compared to an x86 gaming rig.
You can beat the Mini Mac on a straight price/performance comparasion,
but
factor in subjective things like near silent running and the tiny form
factor
and you'll struggle to find anything to compare. Just off the top of my
head
a MiniITX board, case, memory, Hard drive, Slimline CDRW and PSU comes
to
about £250 retail (and that's for less performance and does not include
an
operating system or any manufacturer support)
There have been many other small form factor PCs in the past, tbh I'm not too worried about how big my computer is as it sits under my desk. Also you have to factor in the one of the design flaws of the Mac mini with its dodgy dvi/vga adaptor which isn't compatible for the vesa spec which to me suggests a big Apple design flaw (so it isn't *always* sensible design).
There are some benefits to having a Mac, but then downsides too. Trying to take the Mac cult approach of "everything is good" doesn't really work. I'm not really defending x86 though, as I think the architecture is a bit crap but then again there aren't many options but I think I will stay put for now. I also thought of one more point that wasn't raised and that is the relative upgradability of a PC compared to a Mac.
The machine I am typing on was originally a 1.4Ghz Athlon with a Ge-Force 2 card which cost 600 quid, the motherboard died and it cost 50 quid to replace with a newer better motherboard and around the same time I upgraded the gfx card to a geforce 4 for 100 quid. At christmas I upgraded the cpu and gfx card which cost me 200 quid for a 2.mumble Ghz Athlon and a GeForce 6600GT card and the upgrade required me to buy some new ram (total 1GB). Every time I have upgraded the machine I have sold many of the bits on ebay.
When I add up what it has cost me over 4 years (1050 quid) and what I got back by selling bits (150 quid, and if I had sold the geforce 2 card I would have got another 50 quid) It has cost me 850 quid to have a machine that is more than fast enough (and at the beginning was fairly high end) for nearly 4 years with no upgrade projected for another 2 years I would say that works out as a bit of a bargain compared to an equivalent Mac (in fact, looking at the Apple store online, an equivalent (but admittedly slightly faster) G5 Mac would cost me about 1361 quid. God knows what the price would have been if I had stayed with Mac kit from the beginning.
Adam
jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
--__--__--
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main
End of main Digest
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005
I thought there were blocks stopping messages with "main digest" from reaching the list, to prevent people quoting the whole 17k wodge. Can they be put back, please?
Digest readers, please follow the instructions at the top of the digest when replying. Mailboxes and sanity will thank you for it. (I'm more bothered by whole-quoting digests than missing References headers.)
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:17:28PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I thought there were blocks stopping messages with "main digest" from reaching the list, to prevent people quoting the whole 17k wodge. Can they be put back, please?
Erm, who are you addressing this request at please? It isn't really addressed to anyone in particular as far as I can make out.
Adam
Adam wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:17:28PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I thought there were blocks stopping messages with "main digest" from reaching the list, to prevent people quoting the whole 17k wodge. Can they be put back, please?
Erm, who are you addressing this request at please? [...]
For all contributors to read/object/support/ignore, but I guess it needs action from mail@johnwoodard.co.uk or adam@thebowery.co.uk Apologies for not cc'ing. I assumed you were on the list.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:31:20PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
For all contributors to read/object/support/ignore, but I guess it needs action from mail@johnwoodard.co.uk or adam@thebowery.co.uk Apologies for not cc'ing. I assumed you were on the list.
Erm, what blocks? they have never existed afaik and you know the list password so you do it, if it is a big problem for you that is. I favour the path of least resistance which is user education.
Thanks Adam
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:16 +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
Erm, who are you addressing this request at please? It isn't really addressed to anyone in particular as far as I can make out.
Probably aimed at Bob Dove, reposting the whole of a digest and adding half a dozen lines (top posted as well LOL).
Welcome Bob !
Peter O
Adam
Hi Peter
Is there something wrong with "top posting" ??
Regards, Paul.
On Friday 08 April 2005 15:43, Peter Onion wrote:
(top posted as well LOL)
The message 200504081544.02798.bdi-emc@ntlworld.com from Paul bdi-emc@ntlworld.com contains these words:
Hi Peter
Is there something wrong with "top posting" ??
Regards, Paul.
On Friday 08 April 2005 15:43, Peter Onion wrote:
(top posted as well LOL)
Yes.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:43:25PM +0100, Peter Onion wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:16 +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
Erm, who are you addressing this request at please? It isn't really addressed to anyone in particular as far as I can make out.
Probably aimed at Bob Dove, reposting the whole of a digest and adding half a dozen lines (top posted as well LOL).
Bzzzzt, you failed the test :)
I carefully quoted the bit that I was on about (mailing list blocks) wrt to MJRs email.
Thanks Adam
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:49 +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
Probably aimed at Bob Dove, reposting the whole of a digest and adding half a dozen lines (top posted as well LOL).
Bzzzzt, you failed the test :)
No, 'tis you that has failed to follow the thread.
There was mention of a 17K posting, and the one I mentioned is the only 17K posting I can see....
PeterO
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:18:47PM +0100, Peter Onion wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:49 +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
Probably aimed at Bob Dove, reposting the whole of a digest and adding half a dozen lines (top posted as well LOL).
Bzzzzt, you failed the test :)
No, 'tis you that has failed to follow the thread.
Bzzzzt, Bzzzzt, Oh dear, you failed the test twice now :)
There was mention of a 17K posting, and the one I mentioned is the only 17K posting I can see....
Yeah, but I wasn't talking about a 17K posting, I was talking about a vague request from MJR about filtering/blocks on the list. Nothing to do with the actual 17K posting itself.
Thanks Adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray mjr@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
I thought there were blocks stopping messages with "main digest" from reaching the list, to prevent people quoting the whole 17k wodge. Can they be put back, please?
I didn't know that there was every any blocks, maybe you're dreaming again, Mr Ray :)
I would suggest that the list doesn't have enough traffic to make digest particularly useful, how many people (out of interest) have this option set?
Thanks, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:40:41PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
I would suggest that the list doesn't have enough traffic to make digest particularly useful, how many people (out of interest) have this option set?
51 email addresses are subscribed to the digest (i discounted any that were set to digest but also had nomail set) out of 284 mail addresses listed in the subscribers database, I didn't count how many of these addresses are set to "nomail" so quite a few are obviously defunct.
Thanks Adam
-
Adam Bower -
Anthony Anson -
Bob Dove -
Brett Parker -
MJ Ray -
Paul -
Peter Onion